Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Ed Miliband: "I'm determined we learn the lessons of the past, including Iraq"
A Commons vote on the UK's response to a chemical attack near Damascus hangs in the balance, after Labour demanded "compelling evidence" of Syria's guilt.
Ministers watered down Thursday's vote to one on military action in principle only, claiming a "consensual" approach.
But Labour could still vote against it as it wants more evidence President Assad's regime carried out the attack.
The UK government will shortly publish legal advice and intelligence on the attack near Damascus on 21 August.
Its motion, to be debated later, states a final vote on action should now be held only after UN inspectors report on the use of chemical weapons - which President Bashar al-Assad's regime blames on opposition fighters.
But Labour will push its own amendment to a vote and has not yet decided whether to support the government, if it fails.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said he had not wanted a decision on military action to be made on an "artificial timetable" and it was important to "learn the lessons of Iraq", and give the UN inspectors time to present their evidence.
Analysis
The day after the government watered down plans for an early vote on military action in Syria, they still cannot be sure of Labour's support in tonight's Commons debate.
Labour is pushing ahead with its own amendment, which is slightly different to the government proposal - although the gap is significantly less than it appeared on Wednesday.
The biggest difference appears to be Labour's demand for "compelling evidence" that President Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, before the UK gets involved in any military strike.
It means that Labour is not supporting the government at this stage because it wants MPs to back its proposal instead.
However we still don't know how the party will vote on the government's motion, which will be put to MPs after Labour's amendment.
Labour sources say it is "wait and see" on whether they will support the government if their amendment fails.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Miliband was able to claim a political victory and the government, even having backed down, could not be confident of getting sufficient MPs to vote for their motion.
Foreign Secretary William Hague said it was necessary to proceed "on a consensual basis" and said the prime minister recognised "the deep concerns in this country over what happened over Iraq".
On Wednesday, the UK presented the UN with a draft resolution authorising "necessary measures" to protect Syrian civilians.
US President Barack Obama said on Wednesday his country was certain the Assad regime was responsible for the attack - though he also said he had not made a decision on a military strike.
UN weapons inspectors are expected to leave Damascus on Saturday before presenting their evidence to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon This means a second parliamentary vote would probably not happen until at least early next week.
In other developments:
MPs will debate the government's motion from 14:30 BST (13:30 GMT) with a vote not expected until 22:00 BST (21:00 GMT). The House of Lords will also debate the motion but will not vote.
Models for possible intervention
- Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait
- Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures"
- Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out
- Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN Security Council authorisation for humanitarian operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China abstained but did not veto resolution. Air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi
The government is to publish advice from the attorney general on the legality of military intervention along with the findings of the joint intelligence committee later on Thursday morning.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the government was seeking "to make the case for a simple, limited response" to the use of chemical weapons, arguing it would be a "fateful decision" if the West did not act.
"It is much more likely that Assad will use chemical weapons more frequently, in a more widespread way if nothing happens," he said.
He denied the government was seeking a mandate for unlimited intervention in Syria's conflict.
The government motion states "this House deplores the use of chemical weapons" by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government, and says a response "may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons".
'Government climb down'Labour's amendment states it would "only support military action involving UK forces" if various conditions were met - including "the production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons".
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Mr Cameron will open the Commons debate and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will close it.
A meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on Wednesday discussed the UK's draft resolution and talks are expected to continue for several days.
The resolution condemns the use of chemical weapons and demands that the regime of President Assad cease to use such weapons.
The security council, which meets whenever peace is threatened, is made up of 15 members, including permanent members China, Russia, France, the US and the UK.
Previous efforts to secure action against President Assad have been vetoed by Russia and China.
Syria has accused the West of "inventing" excuses to launch a strike.
The Speaker of the Syrian Parliament has written to Commons Speaker John Bercow inviting a parliamentary delegation to Damascus to check the UN's conclusions.
The letter added that Syria will sue those responsible in British courts if the UK attacks - which it said would be an "aggressive and unprovoked act of war".
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Labour could still vote no on Syria
Dengan url
http://gayabugarsehat.blogspot.com/2013/08/labour-could-still-vote-no-on-syria.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Labour could still vote no on Syria
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Labour could still vote no on Syria
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar